I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think his point is that we should pretend not to think it's murder so as to make our cause more appealing to pro-choice people.

I would point out that there are several recent instances of right-wing organisations diluting their positions to make them more palatable to their ideological opponents. I think in particular of:

The Episcopal Church since the the 1970s or so (if I have my dates right)

The Catholic Church since Vatican II

The Republican Party (actually, American conservatives in general)

How has that worked out for them? Have they become more popular, more relevant? Have their goals been better achieved?

Well, categorizing The Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church as "right-wing organisations" is really stretching things,

Not if you adopt my definition of Right and Left, which is supra-political. Both churches were, if you must, conservative. (The Catholic Church to a large extent still is, but the Episcopals have gone off the deep end.)

Just out of curiosity, how has the Catholic Church's position on abortion been "diluted"?

As far as I know it hasn't, at least at the level of dogma, though I'd like a few more people to be excommunicated over the issue. I was referring to the general dilution of the Faith through poor religious education, Protestantised liturgies, etc. and not criticising the Catholic position on abortion specifically. The point was that weakening your stance on your own crucial views and attitudes to appeal to your enemies more rarely works.

I know there are individual Catholics and people who self-identify as "Catholics" but rarely if ever step foot in a church, much less receive the Sacraments, and various "liberal" groups of religious men and women who are all very much for abortion and women's right to choose (to kill their unborn baby), but they hardly are representative of the Catholic Church as a whole, and the Church's position on abortion is that it is a very grave and "mortal" sin. Period.

Oh, I dont dispute the point. Again, I wasn't talking about the abortion issue specifically when I mentioned the Catholic Church.

Okee dokee! I reckon it was the use of your definition of Right and Left that had me a little confused. Now that you've cleared that up....we really are on the same page .

I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think his point is that we should pretend not to think it's murder so as to make our cause more appealing to pro-choice people.

I would point out that there are several recent instances of right-wing organisations diluting their positions to make them more palatable to their ideological opponents. I think in particular of:

The Episcopal Church since the the 1970s or so (if I have my dates right)

The Catholic Church since Vatican II

The Republican Party (actually, American conservatives in general)

How has that worked out for them? Have they become more popular, more relevant? Have their goals been better achieved?

Yes it is probably a good idea to "dilute" the message so that it does not come off as trying to force your religion on people or that you are threatening them with harm. Call me crazy.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think his point is that we should pretend not to think it's murder so as to make our cause more appealing to pro-choice people.

I would point out that there are several recent instances of right-wing organisations diluting their positions to make them more palatable to their ideological opponents. I think in particular of:

The Episcopal Church since the the 1970s or so (if I have my dates right)

The Catholic Church since Vatican II

The Republican Party (actually, American conservatives in general)

How has that worked out for them? Have they become more popular, more relevant? Have their goals been better achieved?

Yes it is probably a good idea to "dilute" the message so that it does not come off as trying to force your religion on people or that you are threatening them with harm. Call me crazy.

I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think his point is that we should pretend not to think it's murder so as to make our cause more appealing to pro-choice people.

I would point out that there are several recent instances of right-wing organisations diluting their positions to make them more palatable to their ideological opponents. I think in particular of:

The Episcopal Church since the the 1970s or so (if I have my dates right)

The Catholic Church since Vatican II

The Republican Party (actually, American conservatives in general)

How has that worked out for them? Have they become more popular, more relevant? Have their goals been better achieved?

Yes it is probably a good idea to "dilute" the message so that it does not come off as trying to force your religion on people or that you are threatening them with harm. Call me crazy.

Not crazy at all.

Just wrong, if the history of the Right is any guide.

The history I notice most is the last few decades here in the USA. Abortion rates are extremely high and Roe has absolutely no chance of being overturned in our lifetimes.. Sooo..Great work..

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think his point is that we should pretend not to think it's murder so as to make our cause more appealing to pro-choice people.

I would point out that there are several recent instances of right-wing organisations diluting their positions to make them more palatable to their ideological opponents. I think in particular of:

The Episcopal Church since the the 1970s or so (if I have my dates right)

The Catholic Church since Vatican II

The Republican Party (actually, American conservatives in general)

How has that worked out for them? Have they become more popular, more relevant? Have their goals been better achieved?

Yes it is probably a good idea to "dilute" the message so that it does not come off as trying to force your religion on people or that you are threatening them with harm. Call me crazy.

Not crazy at all.

Just wrong, if the history of the Right is any guide.

The history I notice most is the last few decades here in the USA. Abortion rates are extremely high and Roe has absolutely no chance of being overturned in our lifetimes.. Sooo..Great work..

I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think his point is that we should pretend not to think it's murder so as to make our cause more appealing to pro-choice people.

I would point out that there are several recent instances of right-wing organisations diluting their positions to make them more palatable to their ideological opponents. I think in particular of:

The Episcopal Church since the the 1970s or so (if I have my dates right)

The Catholic Church since Vatican II

The Republican Party (actually, American conservatives in general)

How has that worked out for them? Have they become more popular, more relevant? Have their goals been better achieved?

Yes it is probably a good idea to "dilute" the message so that it does not come off as trying to force your religion on people or that you are threatening them with harm. Call me crazy.

Not crazy at all.

Just wrong, if the history of the Right is any guide.

The history I notice most is the last few decades here in the USA. Abortion rates are extremely high and Roe has absolutely no chance of being overturned in our lifetimes.. Sooo..Great work..

So...we are losing.

Therefore...adopt the strategy of other groups who are also losing?

Brilliant thinking.

ummmmmmmmmmm no.. Just stop threatening people and miss characterizing them and trying to impose religious idea's. Try to figure out how to get people to listen.

Not rocket science

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think his point is that we should pretend not to think it's murder so as to make our cause more appealing to pro-choice people.

I would point out that there are several recent instances of right-wing organisations diluting their positions to make them more palatable to their ideological opponents. I think in particular of:

The Episcopal Church since the the 1970s or so (if I have my dates right)

The Catholic Church since Vatican II

The Republican Party (actually, American conservatives in general)

How has that worked out for them? Have they become more popular, more relevant? Have their goals been better achieved?

Yes it is probably a good idea to "dilute" the message so that it does not come off as trying to force your religion on people or that you are threatening them with harm. Call me crazy.

Not crazy at all.

Just wrong, if the history of the Right is any guide.

The history I notice most is the last few decades here in the USA. Abortion rates are extremely high and Roe has absolutely no chance of being overturned in our lifetimes.. Sooo..Great work..

I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think his point is that we should pretend not to think it's murder so as to make our cause more appealing to pro-choice people.

I would point out that there are several recent instances of right-wing organisations diluting their positions to make them more palatable to their ideological opponents. I think in particular of:

The Episcopal Church since the the 1970s or so (if I have my dates right)

The Catholic Church since Vatican II

The Republican Party (actually, American conservatives in general)

How has that worked out for them? Have they become more popular, more relevant? Have their goals been better achieved?

Yes it is probably a good idea to "dilute" the message so that it does not come off as trying to force your religion on people or that you are threatening them with harm. Call me crazy.

Not crazy at all.

Just wrong, if the history of the Right is any guide.

The history I notice most is the last few decades here in the USA. Abortion rates are extremely high and Roe has absolutely no chance of being overturned in our lifetimes.. Sooo..Great work..

The state is another kettle of fish altogether, and the position I've been holding throughout this debate is that criminalising abortion a) is unfeasible, and b) will do more harm than good.

You mean more harm than murdering millions of innocents every year?

Yes, that's precisely what I mean. There would be an underground network for (very expensive) safe abortions, an even larger network for unsafe ones, ethical conundrums for medical personnel, many dead women, many dead babies - clumsily aborted or strangled at birth, as they used to be in days of yore - many charges bandied about and leading nowhere, and law enforcement completely powerless to actually enforce the law. Welcome to the new dark ages.

This is an utterly groundless statement. You condone the murder of MILLIONS of innocent babies by saying a few thousand abortions used to get done and thankfully many of those murderous mothers suffered as well. Your statement holds no rational position. It is nothing more than crazy talk. But to be fair, I want to make sure I understand. You say it’s ok to murder millions of innocent babies to save a few thousand whose mothers were going to kill them anyway and some of those murderers by their own actions could cause their own deaths in the process?

Actually, the Mothers are not murderous in their hearts at all. They don't believe that they are carrying a fully formed soul. I dare say most don't even know what a soul is exactly.

They believe they are dealing with a "Condition" that only involves them. In fact, it is reasonable for a Woman to believe that at least in early stages of pregnancy that the zygote or embryo is not yet a person. It's only via the teachings of your own religion that you think otherwise. Of course you really don't "know" for sure either. You just trust the teachings of your Church. A Church most of these Women don't follow or even remotely understand.

So as long as you characterize Women as "Murderous" you will hamper any attempts to convince them not to have an abortion because they already know how wrong you are about them..

Since when did what we think alter reality? People don't think God exists. Will this help them at their Judgment? No, nor will the claim they didn't think they were murdering someone out of convenience. Hitler thought he was helping the world by exterminating Jews, and he was a murderer.

I think the point should be working to have fewer abortions.. Being strident and threatening people has not worked so far and will probably continue not to work. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.. Enjoy.

I don't think that you can say that since we are not allowed to be truly strident. I would be willing to guarantee that if we were to execute all abortion doctors and apply the penalty for murder to all women having an abortion, the abortion rate would drop to a level much lower than it is today, and the total deaths (from abortion and execution) would still be lower than the abortion deaths alone as they are now. Now the morality of this approach is certainly up for question, but I do not think that the results could be debated.

I think his point is that we should pretend not to think it's murder so as to make our cause more appealing to pro-choice people.

I would point out that there are several recent instances of right-wing organisations diluting their positions to make them more palatable to their ideological opponents. I think in particular of:

The Episcopal Church since the the 1970s or so (if I have my dates right)

The Catholic Church since Vatican II

The Republican Party (actually, American conservatives in general)

How has that worked out for them? Have they become more popular, more relevant? Have their goals been better achieved?

Yes it is probably a good idea to "dilute" the message so that it does not come off as trying to force your religion on people or that you are threatening them with harm. Call me crazy.

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

This part reminds me of the speech at the end of 'The Great Dictator':

“… More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost …”- Charlie Chaplin

Yep. It's pretty sad that this simple question has produced 14 pages of debate. But then again, I probably just don't understand the complex nuances of the issue. And apparrently those unenlightened apostles (you know, the ones who actually attained theosis) didn't understand the nuances of abortion either. Too bad they're not around today to be educated and admonished by some of these posters who are more open minded and knowledgable about the issue.

Selam

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Yes it is probably a good idea to "dilute" the message so that it does not come off as trying to force your religion on people or that you are threatening them with harm. Call me crazy.

If abortion is not the killing of an innocent human person, is there any valid argument against the practice?

I don't see how it can be diluted without becoming meaningless. The religious aspect I do agree with you about to some degree. If our argument is "because the Bible/Church says so" that's basically a green light to anyone who doesn't believe in those. The same goes for those who speak of abortion and non-abortive contraception as moral equivalents. One might be better making the argument along philosophical grounds, which are no less convincing. Everyone's favourite atheist, Christpher Hitchens, along with a number of others, were against the common aguments in favour of abortion and made quite convincing arguments accordingly.

Yep. It's pretty sad that this simple question has produced 14 pages of debate. But then again, I probably just don't understand the complex nuances of the issue. And apparrently those unenlightened apostles (you know, the ones who actually attained theosis) didn't understand the nuances of abortion either. Too bad they're not around today to be educated and admonished by some of these posters who are more open minded and knowledgable about the issue.

Selam

Concur.

The following is a bit off of this topic, but observing your juridiction I thought that I might mention that I spent a month in Ethiopia about seven years ago. Starting from Addis, I travelled the northern route in a circle stopping at Bahar Dar, the Lake Tana islands, Gondar, Axum, and Lalibela. I have several histories of it from Red Sea Press, but I especially look forward to getting Antony Boulatovich's history of the battle of Adowa and the subsequent events which basically describe how the europeans wooed the only king whom they failed to conquer.

I love the intriguing history of this, but I reckon that this category is not the proper one for deeper discussion of that history.

I would be less inclined to listen to a person who modified his views on supposedly unchanging eternal objective truths...

For what it's worth, I do not think that Mark1152 disagrees with the above quote.

You mean the buck stops with Orthodox Christians that agree with all the religious pre-suppositions that are involved. It clearly does not stop with the rest of society. Therefore, you need to pick your words carefully and not come off like you are threatening people or forcing your personal religious idea's upon them.

Just a suggestion

« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 10:59:53 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I concurred with those words of his - not necessarily the other posts which he has made.

I actually incline to agree with your approach to this subject, and you seem to me innocent of what some posts have accused you of.

I did not mention the posts of his which I did not concur merely because I reckoned it would be good to reconcile the two aspects of this conversation. They seemed angry at you already. If I joined in full force against them, I don't think it would have accomplished much - which was actually your reasonable contention concerning approach to the abortion problem.

Any Christian should read the quotes from the early Christians I posted. Christians should consider it murder, as they did then, as most do now.

Agreed Christians should understand the sin of Abortion to be like a Murder. However, when you plop a religious formulation right in the middle of secular Society there are problems. In this case there is an extreme logical disconnect between what is normally considered a Murder and Abortion in terms of how it would be punished.

If you say Abortion is the same as any other murder as understood in our society today then you must either jail women for life or very long terms or execute them. Some here, rather than admit the flaw in their arguments, go on to say they would indeed jail or execute women..

So threatening Women with life in prison or execution is pretty juvenile. Your arguments appear to collapse when put into context. That is why so many people dismiss them out of hand and abortion rates continue to soar.IMHO

What you could say is : "MY religion considers Abortion to be a sin as grave as Murder". Therefore, I would warn of the extraordinarily serious spiritual consequences of having an Abortion.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 11:18:20 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

The idea of separation of Church and State is a new idea, and not one that has created a better society than those of the past. We are to obey the State only to the point that it forces us to violate the Law of God. Abortion certainly violates the Law of God, so it is our duty to speak out against it, not "compromise". When abortions are performed with our tax dollars, it becomes our duty to act. If peaceful means are not effective, then by more effective means. So quite frankly, I really do not give a flying fart about what "society" thinks or believes. If you put "society" over your God, you are no Christian but part of the Antichrist that is our current society. So, to an extent, if you are an Orthodox Christian, then the Orthodox Christian view is the only one that has any relevance.

I would be less inclined to listen to a person who modified his views on supposedly unchanging eternal objective truths...

For what it's worth, I do not think that Mark1152 disagrees with the above quote.

You mean the buck stops with Orthodox Christians that agree with all the religious pre-suppositions that are involved. It clearly does not stop with the rest of society. Therefore, you need to pick your words carefully and not come off like you are threatening people or forcing your personal religious idea's upon them.

Just a suggestion

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

The idea of separation of Church and State is a new idea, and not one that has created a better society than those of the past. We are to obey the State only to the point that it forces us to violate the Law of God. Abortion certainly violates the Law of God, so it is our duty to speak out against it, not "compromise". When abortions are performed with our tax dollars, it becomes our duty to act. If peaceful means are not effective, then by more effective means. So quite frankly, I really do not give a flying fart about what "society" thinks or believes. If you put "society" over your God, you are no Christian but part of the Antichrist that is our current society. So, to an extent, if you are an Orthodox Christian, then the Orthodox Christian view is the only one that has any relevance.

I would be less inclined to listen to a person who modified his views on supposedly unchanging eternal objective truths...

For what it's worth, I do not think that Mark1152 disagrees with the above quote.

You mean the buck stops with Orthodox Christians that agree with all the religious pre-suppositions that are involved. It clearly does not stop with the rest of society. Therefore, you need to pick your words carefully and not come off like you are threatening people or forcing your personal religious idea's upon them.

Just a suggestion

Restraining yourself from threatening women with life in prison or execution is not really compromising any religious doctrine.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Neither is making apologies for those who offer their "services" for such slaughter.

Since no one has done that, then we're good.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night bud

You made a false accusation. I called you on it..

Questions?

Nope, no questions. I am positive you truly believe you werent carrying water for Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, you've proven to have a slim grasp on reality before so I'll not bother with trying to convince you.

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Neither is making apologies for those who offer their "services" for such slaughter.

Since no one has done that, then we're good.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night bud

You made a false accusation. I called you on it..

Questions?

Nope, no questions. I am positive you truly believe you werent carrying water for Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, you've proven to have a slim grasp on reality before so I'll not bother with trying to convince you.

There was no discussion of Planned Parenthood in this thread and you know it.

Correcting dishonesty is not "Carrying Water" btw.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Restraining yourself from threatening women with life in prison or execution is not really compromising any religious doctrine.

No one is threatening "women" with life in prison or execution. They are threatening murderers and the animals that perform the deed. "Women" do not murder their own children. Libtards tend to intentionally misuse words to confuse and decieve. Those that oppose abortion are somehow against "women". Pretty much the same way that Libtard gun grabbers consider 20 year old gangsters shooting each other in a drug war to be "children killed by gunfire".

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

There was no discussion of Planned Parenthood in this thread and you know it

You know what Im referring to and you know it.

Quote

Correcting dishonesty is not "Carrying Water" btw

Im sure you believe that.

Of course I do. We can do this here if you really need to.

You are referring to how Planned Parenthood was miss represented by Conservatives and the demagoguery used to stampede people.

I pointed out that only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does involves Abortion. I recall several people being surprised because to hear all the political clap trap you would have thought it was the central thing they did. They also get absolutely no Federal or State funds for Abortion, it is completely self sustaining from the fees they charge..

So when dishonest politicians say they are going to "Get Rid" of Planned Parenthood, it is an attack on Women. Nearly all of what they do is Women's Health. They prevent hundreds of thousands of surprise pregnancies each and every year by providing sex education and contraception. They also save lives through their cancer screening services for Women.

If they had actually defunded Planned Parenthood it would have no effect on Abortion. No Government funds go to Abortion services. All they would have defunded would have been much needed Women's Health Services.

The attack on Planned Parenthood was full of miss representation and dishonest scare tactics.

Remember that warning I posted a couple days ago to cease the political discussion on this thread? This post violates it. Therefore, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 14 days. We have enough threads discussing the politics of abortion where they should be: on the Politics board. Let's not turn this thread into yet another.

If you think this warning wrong, please appeal it to me via private message.

- PeterTheAleutModerator

« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 02:45:53 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Restraining yourself from threatening women with life in prison or execution is not really compromising any religious doctrine.

No one is threatening "women" with life in prison or execution. They are threatening murderers and the animals that perform the deed. "Women" do not murder their own children. Libtards tend to intentionally misuse words to confuse and decieve. Those that oppose abortion are somehow against "women". Pretty much the same way that Libtard gun grabbers consider 20 year old gangsters shooting each other in a drug war to be "children killed by gunfire".

Then it isnt Murder as we understand Murder in todays Society. If you hire someone to kill another person it usually gets the death penalty or life in Prison. It rises to a higher level then an act of Passion. Deliberate Murder for hire gets the severest penalties.

So which is it?

« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 02:50:43 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Restraining yourself from threatening women with life in prison or execution is not really compromising any religious doctrine.

No one is threatening "women" with life in prison or execution. They are threatening murderers and the animals that perform the deed. "Women" do not murder their own children. Libtards tend to intentionally misuse words to confuse and decieve. Those that oppose abortion are somehow against "women". Pretty much the same way that Libtard gun grabbers consider 20 year old gangsters shooting each other in a drug war to be "children killed by gunfire".

Then it isnt Murder as we understand Murder in todays Society. If you hire someone to kill another person it usually gets the death penalty or life in Prison. It rises to a higher level then an act of Passion. Deliberate Murder for hire gets the severest penalties.

So which is it?

Are the Laws of God superior to the laws of society?

If so, is abortion unlawful in the eyes of the Church and of God? God said that before He formed you in the womb he knew you. John the Baptist acknowledged the divinity of Christ while BOTH were in the womb.

As a Christian, I think it is safe to say that if Christ was fully God within the Theotokos's womb, then it is also safe to say that He was fully human as well. To say otherwise would be heresy.

It is unlawful to kill another person. Some exceptions are made by the Church for self-defense and for warfare. I do not remember any exceptions made if someone inconveniences you. Killing another human being is still murder, even if they put a cramp on your style.

IF the majority of the population were Christian I think it would fully be within their rights to make the law of man fit with the law of God. So, if the Law of God were to be the official law of the land, then the legal authorities would be able to exercise justice as they see fit. If you do wrong, be afraid, for the rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoers. (The Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 13.)

Whether this is PC or not is not my concern. The point of this thread is the discussion of the Christian response to abortion.

Restraining yourself from threatening women with life in prison or execution is not really compromising any religious doctrine.

No one is threatening "women" with life in prison or execution. They are threatening murderers and the animals that perform the deed. "Women" do not murder their own children. Libtards tend to intentionally misuse words to confuse and decieve. Those that oppose abortion are somehow against "women". Pretty much the same way that Libtard gun grabbers consider 20 year old gangsters shooting each other in a drug war to be "children killed by gunfire".

Then it isnt Murder as we understand Murder in todays Society. If you hire someone to kill another person it usually gets the death penalty or life in Prison. It rises to a higher level then an act of Passion. Deliberate Murder for hire gets the severest penalties.

So which is it?

Are the Laws of God superior to the laws of society?

If so, is abortion unlawful in the eyes of the Church and of God? God said that before He formed you in the womb he knew you. John the Baptist acknowledged the divinity of Christ while BOTH were in the womb.

As a Christian, I think it is safe to say that if Christ was fully God within the Theotokos's womb, then it is also safe to say that He was fully human as well. To say otherwise would be heresy.

It is unlawful to kill another person. Some exceptions are made by the Church for self-defense and for warfare. I do not remember any exceptions made if someone inconveniences you. Killing another human being is still murder, even if they put a cramp on your style.

IF the majority of the population were Christian I think it would fully be within their rights to make the law of man fit with the law of God. So, if the Law of God were to be the official law of the land, then the legal authorities would be able to exercise justice as they see fit. If you do wrong, be afraid, for the rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoers. (The Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 13.)

Whether this is PC or not is not my concern. The point of this thread is the discussion of the Christian response to abortion.

Then will you support executing Women that have abortions?

Push 1 for yes

Push 2 for no

Push 3 if confused

« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 05:23:22 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Whether this is PC or not is not my concern. The point of this thread is the discussion of the Christian response to abortion.

The Christian response to abortion is 'don't do it'. Whether it is legal, whether others, who don't subscribe to our moral code, are allowed to do it, that's not our concern either.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

I would be less inclined to listen to a person who modified his views on supposedly unchanging eternal objective truths...

For what it's worth, I do not think that Mark1152 disagrees with the above quote.

You mean the buck stops with Orthodox Christians that agree with all the religious pre-suppositions that are involved. It clearly does not stop with the rest of society. Therefore, you need to pick your words carefully and not come off like you are threatening people or forcing your personal religious idea's upon them.

Just a suggestion

This is an Orthodox forum. You are an Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox Church states abortion is murder. Yes, the buck does indeed stop here. Rather than pacify to the heretical masses, you should be standing firm with the Orthodox Church and attempting to help those who are damning themselves by the deliberate and unashamed murder of millions of innocents. This is the problem with Christians today. They would rather make nice with and compromise the truth with those who will take advantage of them instead of speaking bolding Gods messages, the Church’s teachings, and the truth. No one was ever converted and remained Orthodox by a lie. Reality is what converts people to Orthodoxy, not make believe.

The idea of separation of Church and State is a new idea, and not one that has created a better society than those of the past. We are to obey the State only to the point that it forces us to violate the Law of God. Abortion certainly violates the Law of God, so it is our duty to speak out against it, not "compromise". When abortions are performed with our tax dollars, it becomes our duty to act. If peaceful means are not effective, then by more effective means. So quite frankly, I really do not give a flying fart about what "society" thinks or believes. If you put "society" over your God, you are no Christian but part of the Antichrist that is our current society. So, to an extent, if you are an Orthodox Christian, then the Orthodox Christian view is the only one that has any relevance.

The idea of separation of Church and State is a new idea, and not one that has created a better society than those of the past. We are to obey the State only to the point that it forces us to violate the Law of God. Abortion certainly violates the Law of God, so it is our duty to speak out against it, not "compromise". When abortions are performed with our tax dollars, it becomes our duty to act. If peaceful means are not effective, then by more effective means. So quite frankly, I really do not give a flying fart about what "society" thinks or believes. If you put "society" over your God, you are no Christian but part of the Antichrist that is our current society. So, to an extent, if you are an Orthodox Christian, then the Orthodox Christian view is the only one that has any relevance.

I would be less inclined to listen to a person who modified his views on supposedly unchanging eternal objective truths...

For what it's worth, I do not think that Mark1152 disagrees with the above quote.

You mean the buck stops with Orthodox Christians that agree with all the religious pre-suppositions that are involved. It clearly does not stop with the rest of society. Therefore, you need to pick your words carefully and not come off like you are threatening people or forcing your personal religious idea's upon them.

Just a suggestion

Restraining yourself from threatening women with life in prison or execution is not really compromising any religious doctrine.

First, let’s clear up the fact this is NOT a woman’s issue. This is a life and death issue. Now that this has been cleared up, we can move on. So, no more women’s sympathy card. It doesn’t work.

Since it is not a women’s issue, and a life or death issue, then those who commit abortions are murderers. This includes the mother, and anyone else who is ok with the violent act (fathers, doctors, parents, friends who take them to the clinic, nurses, etc.) They are all accomplices to the murder and as such, all should be punished, to include the mother.

Now the last part. No one is attempting or wants to compromise. This is yet another mistake you are making. Orthodox do not compromise on Church doctrine. That is what has kept it the true Apostolic Church. Perhaps you missed that part, I do not know. Perhaps you ignore it and have been too influenced by modern propaganda. Only you know which.

Murderers go to prison and it shouldn’t matter who they are. A mother drowns her 4 year old in the tub because she wants to be single and party. It’s the same thing.

Restraining yourself from threatening women with life in prison or execution is not really compromising any religious doctrine.

No one is threatening "women" with life in prison or execution. They are threatening murderers and the animals that perform the deed. "Women" do not murder their own children. Libtards tend to intentionally misuse words to confuse and decieve. Those that oppose abortion are somehow against "women". Pretty much the same way that Libtard gun grabbers consider 20 year old gangsters shooting each other in a drug war to be "children killed by gunfire".

Then it isnt Murder as we understand Murder in todays Society. If you hire someone to kill another person it usually gets the death penalty or life in Prison. It rises to a higher level then an act of Passion. Deliberate Murder for hire gets the severest penalties.

So which is it?

You appear to enjoy twisting reality around into something it isn't. You did it so well here, I don't know what the point you are attempting to make is.

The bottom line is, you are either Orthodox or you are not. The way my priest explains it to me is, if you reject part of the Orthodox Church, you reject all of the Orthodox Church and the only options you have is to either accept all or leave. This is a very clear and easily understood teaching which even small children can grasp. The choice is yours. Orthodoxy, or something else. Pick one.